Crime Against Nature - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

04/18/2013 06:08:07 PM · #1

I was preparing my entry for Architectural Detail Triptych. In the end I had a 4273x4215 pixel, 200 MB image. At that size and in all modesty, it is magnificent. Shrinking it to 800 pixels and 300 K is a crime against nature.

What I will show here is just 3.5% the size of the original!

Isn't it time, yet again, to debate the merits (or lack there of) of such a pitifully small image?????

Or will this die another day like gun control in congress [please don't hijack the thread on gun control. It was meant to be a metaphor.]

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

04/18/2013 06:25:09 PM · #2

I think increasing the max width makes the most sense. 800 pixels might be tall enough, but I'd love to be able to go 1600 wide.

Tiberius

Samsung Galaxy S22, S22+, S22 Ultra

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

04/18/2013 07:23:35 PM · #3

Originally posted by Cory:

I think increasing the max width makes the most sense. 800 pixels might be tall enough, but I'd love to be able to go 1600 wide.

Agreed.

My entry is short of magnificence (mainly due to lack of time as talent and skill is omnipresent :-) - yeah! haha) but I have to say that it does look way better on my 24" Dell monitor in full screen.

Message edited by author 2013-04-18 21:22:00.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/18/2013 09:03:02 PM · #4

Triple agreed. I almost cried when I saw mine at 800. 'Cuz, see, it's a TRIPTYCH, a traditional one, and so it can only come in at around 400 high. And some of THAT'S in border area, which it needs for displaying properly. Yuk.

I wish, at least, when they give us challenges like this, they'd give us more horizontal pixels as a special rule. For panoramas, too...

mefnj

Nikon D7100

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

04/18/2013 09:11:18 PM · #5

maybe if we allowed larger size on some challenges, like this one... but i rely on smaller size to hide some of my photo deficiencies, too! ;-)

vawendy

Sony Alpha 1

Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS

04/18/2013 09:26:06 PM · #6

Mine entry sucks at any size.

Now if we were debating any other challenge's size... :)

MarkB

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/18/2013 10:03:46 PM · #7

My entry is using zero pixels, feel free to use my 800 as you see fit.

cowboy221977

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

04/18/2013 10:41:52 PM · #8

Ive got a pretty good entry..maybe ... but I did have to send it to a truly small size

hahn23

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS II USM Lens

04/18/2013 10:45:18 PM · #9

My entry is dreadful. Was okay at 1600 pixels horizontal. But, because of the size constraints, I altered the composition. I should have dumbed down the image(s), but it's not worth the effort for a postage stamp sized entry.

bohemka

Nikon D700

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM for Nikon

04/18/2013 10:52:42 PM · #10

Supersize request for time as well. I don't have enough time to do this well. Wish it were a two-weeker.

CNovack

Canon EOS-600D/T3i Rebel

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

04/18/2013 11:06:58 PM · #11

Well I just hit the over 300KB wall with one of my two possible choices. The only way it would squeak under the 300KB limit is if I upped the compression to 10 - uggh! Looks absolutely terrible. Had no choice but to go with the other composition.

Abra

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/19/2013 02:17:27 AM · #12

This maybe a silly suggestion as I have no idea about computer technology, but, what if there was a link on the image in voting to enable the voter to open an uncompressed image if they wish to view the true potential of the shot. I know there is probably storage issues on challenges but the uncompressed image could be held in your Workshop folder until after the challenge.

smardaz

04/19/2013 06:33:10 AM · #13

Originally posted by Abra:

With some people still claiming small monitors thats probably the best idea I have ever heard concerning this issue.

Hipychik

Sony Alpha a6000

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

04/19/2013 06:57:48 AM · #14

Okay...so I'm not the only one who cried after they resized.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/19/2013 11:17:51 PM · #15

I just entered a photo in the Not My Style challenge.

The original photo resolution was 7360 x 4912 from a current model Nikon D800. The photo as entered was 800 x 534. The entry contains less than 1.2% of the information in the original photo.

Think about the last beer you drank - how happy would you be if it contained .01 ounces of alcohol? Think about the 60 mile per hour freeway speed limit and how happy you would be getting a ticket for driving one per hour. Think about your last 90 minute flight and how happy you would be if it took 150 hours!! Think about your salary and how happy you would be to give up 98% of it!!!!! Need I go on? Seriously???!!!

WHEN WILL LANGDON CONSENT TO MOVE DPC TO THE 21ST CENTURY?????

Langdon has access to web traffic stats showing monitor size of computers viewing this site. World wide, 90% of all screens viewing web pages are GREATER than 1024 x 768. How long must we be held back by the apparently vocal minority?????

Spork99

OM System OM-1

08/20/2013 12:28:51 AM · #16

NO, we cannot advance DPC, it must remain frozen in time, obsolete and creaking as it is. Progress is bad. Obama is a progressive and he's bad therefore progress is bad...DPC must be regressive, and move back at least to VGA, maybe even to CGA resolution and 8 bit color. You silly progressives, ruining our country, now you want to ruin DPC too. Dammit!

And stay the Hell off my lawn!

skewsme

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens

08/20/2013 01:05:58 AM · #17

It's ok, I heared Nature just bought hisself a bigass assault rifle from VA. Crime dont stand a chance.

HarveyG

Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM for Nikon

08/20/2013 01:24:09 AM · #18

I've read these 800px is too small threads here since day one but no replies by the site owner. There has been one file dimension increase in that time from the original 640px to 800px. I think the issue here is hard drive allocation vs hosting cost on the DPC web server. I doubt it is bandwidth as these days that tends to be unlimited for a flat charge. If HDD storage vs cost is the case then someone in authority should come right out and say it. Having said that my average image size for my web site and other places I post to is 1920x1080px72dpi. I manage to keep those to about 300kb or less with ample quality for web viewing, the same file size (kb) restriction we have here. (Note: I said file size, not file dimensions.) Some images depending on complexity one might struggle to keep it below 300kb, especially massively complex landscapes with dramatic skies so perhaps a small increase to 500kb would not go amiss.

There are no restrictions that I can remember in the workshop area? I've uploaded files greater than 800px and 300kb there. The odd person will complain that their monitor is too small to see an image larger than 800px and they have to scroll but in all honesty that really is the exception to the rule. Even on the dark continent we rarely see a 15" CRT any more :)
This one is 960px (half of 1920px) (click on "View full sized image") once open:

This one for example is 1072px (click on "View full sized image") once open:

The original 640px challenge #1 winner:

Message edited by author 2013-08-20 01:33:51.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/20/2013 02:05:06 AM · #19

HarveyG

Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM for Nikon

08/20/2013 05:00:46 AM · #20

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

I'm sure you're a vampire, you never sleep...

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/20/2013 05:34:06 AM · #21

Originally posted by HarveyG:

I'm sure you're a vampire, you never sleep...

I don't think I am - let me look in the mirror...

...Hmmm, hard to tell. I don't see anything.

Message edited by author 2013-08-20 05:34:58.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

08/20/2013 06:18:19 AM · #22

Originally posted by HarveyG:

... Some images depending on complexity one might struggle to keep it below 300kb, especially massively complex landscapes with dramatic skies so perhaps a small increase to 500kb would not go amiss. ...

I have DSL and sometimes I have to wait (believe it or not) for the voting pages to load ... 500kb would slow it down even more. Is the majority of the DPC community on T1 lines or fiber-optic access? In our area I'd say only 30-40% of the community has fast internet as we wait for the infrastructure to catch up to the semi-rural areas.

Also ... in regards to the pixel size limits, I wonder what the impact would be to the increasing number of tablet users? Seems like tablet use is going up and the number of standard computers is decreasing - yes/no?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/20/2013 11:43:20 PM · #23

Originally posted by HarveyG:

] {snip} I think the issue here is hard drive allocation vs hosting cost on the DPC web server. I doubt it is bandwidth as these days that tends to be unlimited for a flat charge. {snip}

I understand storage and bandwidth cost. If Langdon put up the price of DPC a buck, he could buy another 10 Terabytes of storage every year. 10 terabytes would host a million 500k images if my math is right. Another buck and he could buy 2 gigabit internet service. Do we really think we'd lose a single member if we had a $2 price increase, especially if it delivered larger photos and swifter site performance.

I am not unsympathetic to users with constrained internet access. But if you look at SmugMug for example. They deliver images sized to whatever browser size you're using and those with slower connections could still deal with images sized smaller to manage their internet performance.

It can't be about cost. It can't be about monitor size. It can't be about ISP performance.

I think it's about architecture and a willingness to decide to meet user expectations.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

08/20/2013 11:50:09 PM · #24

Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:

But if you look at SmugMug for example. They deliver images sized to whatever browser size you're using and those with slower connections could still deal with images sized smaller to manage their internet performance.

Ideaslly we don't want people voting on resized images -- we'd rather people see it at the size chosen by the photographer.